[Dark RevenantX]

I say that beam weapons are too strong against destroyers, superdestroyers, and juggernaughts.  Cruisers should die if a beam thats bigger than it blasts at it.  Destroyers, however, are huge compared to beam cannons.  I don't see how a destroyer could die if just a few little holes popped up on its hull.  Destroyers need a property that makes them less suseptable (sp.) to beam damage.

[StratComm]

Armor.tbl.  Once it works correctly, it'll be exactly the way to accomplish that without affecting anything that doesn't use it.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


Escape from challenging FREDing? Hardly.. Every tried UNNEEDED FREDing? It should be there.
Giving them a few waypoint to simulate inteligence (since tehy AREN'T inteligent) is one thing, but scripting every beamshot is another. The fact that you have to do that to have an interesting battle shows just how unrealistic (unbalanced) battels are.

There's not a snowballs chance in hell of someone rewriting FSOs code solely to suit your campaign, nor adding features to automatically do things that can already be done within FRED.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by aldo_14


There's not a snowballs chance in hell of someone rewriting FSOs code solely to suit your campaign, nor adding features to automatically do things that can already be done within FRED.

Indeed. TBH, I'm nmot entirely sure why you made this thread. You seem to want to make a lot of changes to canon stuff, make threads or posts about it, then argue with people who disagree wioth you? If you're not going to be swayed from your position, why not just go ahead and do it, release it and see if people play it?

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


There's not a snowballs chance in hell of someone rewriting FSOs code solely to suit your campaign, nor adding features to automatically do things that can already be done within FRED.

Who said anything about rewriting the FSO code?
Allright, AI is one thing that evertyone would like t osee getting better but that's not what I was talking about.

Seriously, I fail to see what this thread has to do with changing or re-writing the FSO? Since it is a table/ship design thing - not a code thing.

I started tis thread to see how people feel about large destroyer battles - to see how much I should change the balance.

There's no question about it - I will make these changes for the later chapters and I can make the FS2 era changed tables available too if anyone wold want them.

oh..Aldo, Stratti - cool down a bit. A guy can't start a poll and discussion thread without you two suspecting some alterior cannon/FSO destroying motives

[aldo_14]

I never said the motive was ulterior.

[Nuclear1]

I still think there is no real need to go changing the tables just because a few things in the game seem a little frustrating. Sure, an Aeolus has nearly half the HP of an Orion. The Orion should have more, but keep in mind that the Aeolus has its weaknesses too: it's meant for dealing with enemy fighters, which its reinforced hull and anti-fighter turrets allow it to do. It has two SGreen turrets to deal with capital ships, but the 45-second recharge on the turrets balances it out so that it's not too powerful.

The Orion is a different case. The Orion is designed to jump in, blast away a cruiser or corvette using its fighter/bomber complements as support when things heat up. The ship has several powerful BGreen turrets and several TerSlash as well, which allows it to deliverh heavy damage quickly and effeciently, hopefully crippling the enemy capital ship before it can return fire.

FS2 ships should be looked at in the same light that the fictional Terrans and Vasudans who designed them did. The Deimos concentrates most of its firepower in the forward firing arc with support in its rear. This can mean that the Deimos was designed to get in, do damage on the charge and support itself from the rear and sides while it made its attack. The Sobek, however, is completely different: it's designed for a head-on attack against a capital ship, while it's turrets give it coverage as it dives under a capital ship to avoid the beam turret coverage of say...the Lucifer?

When FREDing big battle sequences, FRED smart. Look at the ships like they're supposed to; use them like they were designed to be used. A Deimos broadsiding a Demon or an Orion charging head-on against a Hecate isn't a smart way to coordinate a ship battle--assume that the ship commander knows something about his vessel. Make an Orion broadside a ship, while a Leviathan or an Aeolus provide some anti-beam cannon fire support and anti-fighter cover. Have the Iceni exploit its speed and maneuverability to keep it out of the firing arcs of bigger opponents, while exploiting its powerful beams to tear apart the adversary.

The tables don't need to be changed at all. They're fine the way they are, and though some of :V: 's decisions may not seem great at times (i.e. Maxim, Hecate turrets), you can trust that they managed to make an enjoyable campaign with entertaining and involving capital ship duels--if they could, so can you.

Hmm... *gets new idea for article relating to FS2 capital ship design philosophy*



*runs off to writes*

[CP5670]

Aeolus 45000, Orion 100000.. Nothing rong there? oooookaaay...

um...did you even read what I said or the context I said it in?

What exactly are looking to do with this thread? If this is for your own missions, there is obviously nothing wrong with changing the tables as you see fit. I made hundreds of minor changes and gameplay tweaks for my now defunct campaign and all my missions use these modified tables. I didn't mess with the capital ship hull strengths specifically, or at least not by any significant amount, and can see various downsides to doing that (as I said, I would recommend modifying the beam damage values instead), but if you think it will enhance your missions or cut down on the design time, go for it.

[TrashMan]

What [V] captial ship batles? When did you see two destroyers slugging it off in the FS2 campaign?

And if you want to know in hte mission I'm making I'm not scripting the battle - I just make sure the ship starting position and facing makes sense (I.E. - Orion tries to jump in beside it's target a Deimos/Sobek try to go above/below, etc..)

So like I said - setting their arrival paths and facing is one thing, but scripting every beam cannon is another.
suffice to say, that when  I said re-balancing capships that included their weapons too.

The forumula is rather simple - total firepower per minute projected by a capship should be consistant with it's size, armor and function (for instance, the Moloch cant't be as powerfull as a Deimos, as it sacrifices some of it's internal space for the fighterbay).

I'm 100% sure I can make a far better balancing act that [V] did. I've been modding for years and I've done dozens of balancing packs for dozens of games (and all those packs were rated excellent) - suffice to say I have a knack for it :d

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by TrashMan
The forumula is rather simple - total firepower per minute projected by a capship should be consistant with it's size, armor and function (for instance, the Moloch cant't be as powerfull as a Deimos, as it sacrifices some of it's internal space for the fighterbay).

And it isn't now? A Moloch isn't as powerful as a Deimos--there is no way (without some serious modifying or smart FREDing) that a single Moloch with only two SReds would face down a Deimos with four powerful TerSlashes without bomber support. Every ship already is balanced as you said--the Orion and Hatshepsut, obviously designed to be more offensively-based destroyers, have large amounts of anti-capital ship beam power directed towards a target. Hecates and Typhons, which serve more of a carrier role, have more anti-fighter/bomber defenses with some anti-cap defenses. The Aeolus has 45000 HP so that it can withstand fighter and bomber attacks, and it's bristling with flak and AAA beams, which makes it well-suited for the role of escorting convoys.

There's nothing wrong with the way balanced the capital ships. They kind of assumed that the FREDer would not try to force large fleets to engage at the same time, but in smaller battles. Destroyers are meant to capitalize on their size and firepower--how many times have we seen destroyers warp in, blast a corvette or cruiser, and then hang around to clean up with its fighters and bombers once it's all said-and-done? Now, how many times have we seen two destroyers go at it? Very rarely--the few times that it's happened, one ship gets waxed quickly (i.e. Delacroix, Khefrem, Ignatius). The weaker hull of the destroyer's is part of 's balancing to allow the player to be able to conduct bombing runs under fire (ala "Slaying Ravana" or "Sicilian Defense") and still achieve their goal.

If you feel the need to rebalance the entire capital ship battle sector of the game, then I think you're looking at FS2 battles the wrong way.

I made hundreds of minor changes and gameplay tweaks for my now defunct campaign and all my missions use these modified tables.

Speaking of which, CP, is there a chance of the public having the chance to play those PI missions which are finished?

[TrashMan]

I don't thnik I'm looking at them the wrong way, rather that you and me have a different idea of what is balanced

Of course that a distinction has to be made between a Orion/Hatsephut and a Hecate/Typhon, as their roles are different.

Increasing a destroyer HP somewhat (not too much..200000 max)and reducing the damage done by larger beam cannons (the difference between a BGreen and the second most powerfull capship weapon is redicolous) should keep it well balanced.

destroyer battles will last longer, and a destroyers will reamain effective against smaller ships (allthough it will take it a tad longer to kill a cruiser, the cruiser itself will do less damage becouse of increased armor)

The only difference will be the ease with which the player attacks destroyers - which again can be restored by either more wingman or more powerfull warheads.

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by TrashMan
destroyer battles will last longer, and a destroyers will reamain effective against smaller ships (allthough it will take it a tad longer to kill a cruiser, the cruiser itself will do less damage becouse of increased armor)

The only difference will be the ease with which the player attacks destroyers - which again can be restored by either more wingman or more powerfull warheads.

Apparently you're missing the point of a destroyer. The very type implies that is able to cause heavy damage quickly and effectively. Cruisers shouldn't be able to stand up to the kind of firepower that a destroyer puts out. I'm sure that the Terrans and Vasudans realized this--why do you think corvettes were born? The GTVA needed something to combat larger ships but not have a heavy price tag.

Where in the main campaign has a single cruiser gone offensively against a destroyer? When has that cruiser ever succeeded in taking out its target? Cruisers are better suited for either blockade or escort purposes, simply because they bristle with anti-fighter capabilities. Corvettes have the hull to withstand destroyer attacks and return the damage quickly and effectively. That's why TerSlashes have such a quick recharge time.

Cruisers are not meant to take on destroyers. If a cruiser attacks a destroyer, chances are that the destroyer will win. Only in desperate situations such as the attack on the Ravana will a cruiser actually go offensively against a destroyer. Don't punish destroyers for being capable to destroy vessels that are far less powerful than itself. The game doesn't need balancing. The issue here is how to use the ships in the game.

[TrashMan]

I said it will take him a TAD longer to wax smaller ships.. cruisers will still go down VERY fast.

nobody is punishing destroyers.. ther effectivnes against smaller target will reamain the same - it's the destroyer-destroyer battles that interest me. That's what I want to change.

[CP5670]

Speaking of which, CP, is there a chance of the public having the chance to play those PI missions which are finished?

I suppose I could release them as an unfinished package if anyone is interested. I basically have 10 out of 16 missions from an old backup that more or less work fine, although they are considerably outdated versions. I'm actually not too happy with some of these old versions; I had rewritten the third one from scratch and made lots of changes to most of the others, and the next two in particular were much better and probably my best works, but these old copies are decent. My webspace isn't big enough to upload the whole thing though.

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by CP5670
My webspace isn't big enough to upload the whole thing though.

Not big enough to hold ten or so >100KB files?

I'd definitely be interested in playing them, if something can be arranged. Hippo or MatthewPapa would definitely have some spare space at either GTD Bastion or Game Warden.

[CP5670]

I mean with all the mods and crap thrown in. I think it would come out to around 25mb, although I'll need to check.

I guess I might as well throw them out on the internet, since it's very unlikely I will do anything further with them. I suppose they make decent standalone missions even if the story ends just where it starts to get interesting.

[Nuclear1]

Right. Check your PMs.

[Dark RevenantX]

Beams are supposed to cut up whatever it hits.  Cruisers are small and nimble.  A beam twice its width should be able to completely vaporise that part of it.  Then, I will see a cain survive a BGreen and a TerSlash when it should either blow it up or reduce it to a worthless pile of space junk.  Though, i have seen an Orion get hit by a couple TerSlashs and two BGreens, and its hull integrity was severely compromised.  Destroyers and Juggernaughts are huge in comparison to the beams that kill them.  Shouldnt the beams do less damage to them since the damage area in relation to the ship itself is tiny? YES!  Luckily, hit points for the ships do not need changing.  The armor.tbl should make the cruisers get creamed by beams, while bigger ships like destroyers and juggernaughts be more resiliant to beams.

Another harder-to-fix thing is the proportioned damage.  I saw a Sobek die from a BFRed that barely hit it on the tip of one of its fins.  The fin would obviously be annihilated, but why does the whole ship go nova?  The little tip wouldn't house the reactor or anything like that!  Mabey the self-destruction button is there...

[psycho_fergo]

haha, i agree with you dark reverantX

a new addition to FSO would be sectional damage, it would be so awesome.

i can see it now, a beam just toatally snapps a sobek in the fin, and it just breaks off/some kind of hollowness happens.

this is probably pretty hard to do, but i think if someone could do this, then FSO would get so much better...balance would then be stuffed a bit, but it would be so awesome. i suppose the whole percentage meter of a ships hull would be usless, and you would probably have to do proprtionate damage to different sections.

another idea for that would be to have a more "strategic" place to hit on different ships. for instance, there is a weak point in a deimos, so where do you try to place your bombs? where will the beams be aimed? in the weka points..da daaa...

i dunno, im tired so im not explaining any further..u guys can go off that..

and on the origonal topic, i think that the battles should be longer. but there is no way to do it and make everyone happy.

[TrashMan]

I should say than my terran ships are currently stronger than retail versions..with Terran Huge Turrets and all..
A Orion without any beams can wax a Fenris in one salve from it's 5x3 turrets.

that siad I have to repeat that I won't nerf destroyer compared to cruisers or corvettes. The power of ship classes against eachother will remian the same - only destroyer-destroyer balance will be changed.

I'm quite familiar with the armor thingy, but it's currently still in imphant stages and well..I like balancing things